The Mauryan Polity c13.s6.5

c13.s6.5

An attempt has been made by Stein to compare the description of Pāṭaliputra with that found in the *Kauṭalīya*.⁴ It may be that Kauṭalya describes the fortress, its construction and plan from actual conditions, and not as mere theory. On that account it does not stand to reason that Kauṭalya has purely drawn his materials for the construction of a fortress from Pāṭaliputra. It may be that Pāṭaliputra served him as the basis for constructing his theory of a fortress. But we cannot expect Kauṭalya who writes a general treatise on statecraft to follow the details and measurements of Pāṭaliputra. Though the *Arthaśāstra* was for the time being intended for Candragupta, it was a textbook on Polity for all time, and for all kings, and for all places. Therefore Kauṭalya could not have prescribed only one standard,—the model of the fortress at Pāṭaliputra. On the other hand he mentions different kinds of fortresses such as *nadīdurga*, *vanadurga* with respective measurements in details. Some may have four gates and some twelve gates. Some may have one trench around and others three trenches. It all depends on the environs and eminence where such fortress is erected. For the construction of a fortress is purely dependent on topographical and geographical circumstances. By sheer accident, some measurements or details of Megasthenes may coincide with the *Kauṭalīyan* description, as for example, Pāṭaliputra in the form of a square, the wall of Arrian to the *prākāra* of the *Kauṭalīya*, etc. On this account we cannot proceed to compare the two because Kauṭalya is certainly not describing the fort at Pāṭaliputra but is describing how and in what manner a fort could be erected at such and such a place.